Author Topic: Open letter to HIT believers, hardgainers, etc. Seminar. (Read 66319 times)

Vince B · « **Reply #300 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:47:45 PM »

I have said before that DOMS is not the be all of MHT. I just assume it will accompany rapid growth. Find a method that makes you grow rapidly then train the same muscle every 3rd day and see what happens. I just presume you will be sore.

The research re strength has limited value for hypertrophy training. The scientists are not interested in maximum hypertrophy in humans and that is why there is no such research. Don't you think that is unfair in 2006? Well, the scientists think we are lunatics and narcissists. Mirror athletes have no value in universities and are universally considered an embarrassment. What hypertrophy science? What a joke. That is partly why Haycock proposed a method that cannot generate huge size. Why? Well, big muscles are good for volume training not HIT stuff. So if you want big muscles you have to do volume. There is no other way. HIT has been around for a long time. Well, take a bunch of subjects and train one twin HIT for 3 years and let the other twin train HST. I would bet neither group would gain much. Now, give me one twin and I will show you what is possible in 3 years. My results would eclipse those other methods by a factor of at least 2. This is a bold statement but I think a safe one.

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #301 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:50:56 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 20, 2006, 05:40:14 PM

Fatpanda. I do not recommend training as often as one can. I suggest training every 3rd day. It may well be that daily training is best but I rather doubt that.

Bryan Haycock used scientific research to get his HST method. The method itself is not scientific because it has not been tested and from what I have read the success is modest at best. Where are the giants from using HST? There are none and there can be none because that is a submaximal program. Haycock said he can't get any bigger than he was two years ago. In the language of Getbig he self-owned himself! He knows about the 8 and 4 hour requirements for maximum and 50% hypertrophy respectively. Why does he think he can't grow any more? Tell him to come to my gym and I will get his arms an inch bigger in a month.

you mentioned only training 1 body part per session. I don't see how you can train every 3rd day and fully train the body. That would meaning training a body part every couple of weeks. Isn't that too much time to recover especially when trying to maximize hyperthophy?

Rammer · « **Reply #302 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:51:48 PM »

From what I understand DOMS is more apt to occur when you do eccentric contractions or negatives. If you want to get sore just do very heavy negatives to failure. Also DOMS can be reduced by a thorough warmup and stretching before and after a workout. My wife never used to get sore even though she trained extremely hard and wondered why I always got sore. Well she was an aerobic instructor who was constantly doing cardio (flushing waste products from muscles) and stretching. It wasn't until she stopped teaching aerobics that she started getting sore after every workout. Now if 2 people were to perform identical routines but one warmed up and stretched after each workout and didn't get sore while the other didn't warmup thoroughly nor stretched but got really sore would you say one was growing while the other was not? What does that say about DOMS?

Fatpanda · « **Reply #303 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:52:57 PM »

yes vince you may get his arms bigger in a month, but the rest of him will end up smaller in that same month, and for a guy that small thats some feat.

i do not rate hst for how its creator looks, that would be foolish, i rate it on the scientific studies its based on, and while i do not think its the perfect program by any stretch ot the imagination, i am not surprised that so many have stalled on it. i myself tried it for 3 months and burnt out/over trained constantly, and my weights never got any heavier and i never got any bigger, however i have since read more, and advanced my knowledge of the science behind hst, both cited by bryan and various other studies not cited by him and powerlifting science and feel i have came up with a winning program design that stays true to the hst science, but adds in various aspects from eastern block strength science, with good constant size gains and no burnout, yet.........

i am very happy with how things are going at present, but i am not closed minded enough not to keep trying to learn and educate myself on new ideas or science, that was why i felt robbed after reading through your epic ramblings asthey had neither.

Vince B · « **Reply #304 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:55:37 PM »

SteelePegasus. The trick of doing set after set after set with the maximum you can handle for 8 reps is to select a weight you can do for 15 reps. If you select a weight you can do for 8 to 10 reps to start with then by the 4th set your reps will be half of that and that is not the best rep range for hypertrophy. In addition, doing less that 7 reps is getting into the dangerous zone and you don't want to compromise your form and risk injury. Also, 8 + reps are better for increased blood flow which helps stabilize the muscle. The best method had better be a safe one.

Vince B · « **Reply #305 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:58:56 PM »

Rammer. If you try what I suggest you cannot avoid severe DOMS.

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #306 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 20, 2006, 05:55:37 PM

SteelePegasus. The trick of doing set after set after set with the maximum you can handle for 8 reps is to select a weight you can do for 15 reps. If you select a weight you can do for 8 to 10 reps to start with then by the 4th set your reps will be half of that and that is not the best rep range for hypertrophy. In addition, doing less that 7 reps is getting into the dangerous zone and you don't want to compromise your form and risk injury. Also, 8 + reps are better for increased blood flow which helps stabilize the muscle. The best method had better be a safe one.

with that said wouldn't the first 3-4 sets be a waste of time?

ideally wouldn't it better to peak out at 10 reps for every set?

Vince B · « **Reply #307 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:04:33 PM »

SteelePegasus. Follow my suggested program. Triceps supersetted with chins or lat pulldowns. That will stimulate growth in your upper body. If you do leg presses supersetted with calves your legs should grow rapidly. Such a program should be a severe way to train and the only choice the body has to survive is to get bigger. You have to guard against the body shutting you down through injury. Exercise selection and warming up have to be optimal. You cannot do just anything and survive on this program. Don't worry about doing all body parts every week. That is not necessary. If you believe it is and do additional exercises you can kiss any chance of growing goodbye. We are talking about natural training here.

Fatpanda · « **Reply #308 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:05:26 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 20, 2006, 05:47:45 PM

What hypertrophy science? What a joke. That is partly why Haycock proposed a method that cannot generate huge size. Why? Well, big muscles are good for volume training not HIT stuff. So if you want big muscles you have to do volume. There is no other way. HIT has been around for a long time. Well, take a bunch of subjects and train one twin HIT for 3 years and let the other twin train HST. I would bet neither group would gain much. Now, give me one twin and I will show you what is possible in 3 years. My results would eclipse those other methods by a factor of at least 2. This is a bold statement but I think a safe one.

you are probably right about them being equal after 3 years, both their problem lies in the over training aspect, and thet eventusally burnout stopping them from increasing the weights/reps, which brings me back to strength being very important for hypertrophy, jones himself who you hold in such high regard used strength as a gauge to tell if someone was improving or not? how can you explain this if strength has little to do with hypertrophy, you youself said you have to increase weight to increase the damage done to the muscle, how do you propose this will happen if you are not increasing your strength? and please dont try to tell me its the extra 1/500th of an inch you gained in that 3 days that providing the extra strength!

Vince B · « **Reply #309 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:10:47 PM »

SP, the first 3 or 4 sets with the maximum for 15, 12, 10, 9 reps are not a waste of time. You have to do them to end up on a plateau where you can continue set after set for 8 reps. I would have preferred doing 5 reps but I found the resistance too dangerous for the connective tissue on the arms. I needed to get and stay pumped to overcome the pain in my elbows. If you do 5 reps you are going to injure yourself. Doing 10 reps is safer than 5. 8 reps is a compromise. The exact number of reps is not that important. The volume using your maximum resistance is important. You are always trying to increase the resistance for those reps. Perhaps adding small increments with each workout is better than leaping a whole plate or 10 pounds every week or so.

TheGoldenPrince · « **Reply #310 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:16:10 PM »

Vince, you have laid out some intriguing observations. If you could pinpoint what it was exactly that spurred your 1-inch increases in arms and calves in short period of time natural, we could be on to something here.

pumpster · « **Reply #311 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:16:26 PM »

Quote

Triceps supersetted with chins or lat pulldowns.

Why those muscles together?

Decades of experience now, I agree with keeping the reps 8-12 both for tissue development and mitigation of injury potential. Keeping the rest periods shorter also helps in regards to the latter.

Fatpanda · « **Reply #312 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:21:04 PM »

vince how is what your proposing different from the volume style of arnold?

it sounds almost the same? except you feel your system will do more work for a couple of body parts than arnie did for his whole body, without any overtraining?

? and all this without steroids or increased protein?

are you the second coming of christ?

gp are you serious about that question? what increased his arms and calfs was work x frequency, nothing new or intriguing, also a point to note before giving up your current style, an average arm or calf will increase by an inch or more after every workout for that bodypart due to blood in the area. i guarentee if he did not increase protein in his diet one or more of his other body parts would have shrunk more than 1". thats a scientific fact not theory !

Vince B · « **Reply #313 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:22:11 PM »

It is easy to get confused talking about training. A bigger muscle should be a stronger one. Training for strength doesn't alway lead to more size. It depends in part by how much you eat. You are always trying to increase the resistance you are using. But the essential thing for hypertrophy training is to do volume with your maximum resistance. That is the key. Don't reduce the weight. Don't do drop sets. Those are a waste of time.

HIT and HST people are doing too many bodyparts to grow. That is my theory. Target a few muscles each week and make them grow. The surrounding muscles will get stimulated because they are part of a system. Also, a lot of the beliefs about training are inaccurate. For example, we say we are doing bench presses for chest when in fact you are training forearms, arms, delts, lats, abs, and pectorals when you do bench presses. You also use your calves and hamstrings to stabilize your upper body. If you do bench press, chins and then shoulders, arms and so on you are repeatedly targetting the same muscles but not stimulating any particular ones to grow.

HST is supposed to be hypertrophy specific training. That is nonsense. What I am discussing is exactly that. Haycock sells protein, etc., so needs a simple system that stooges can follow and then buy his protein when the gains are not coming. I am selling nothing. Zero. I present my theory as it is for you to inspect and refute if you can.

Vince B · « **Reply #314 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:27:47 PM »

Fatpanda. The need for more protein is the biggest lie magazines have done to bodybuilding. I advocate 1 gram of protein for every Kg of bodyweight. So if you weigh 220 pounds you need about 100 grams of protein. I would bet that 100 grams is more than enough. Taking more is foolish. I don't trust the research about this subject. There is simply too much money to be made from selling supplements to stupid people. Go and do the research about nutrition. Don't read bodybuilding magazines. I subscribe to Ironman on line. They had a recent issue where they reported from a nutrition conference. Info relevant for bodybuilders that is valuable = zero.

pumpster · « **Reply #315 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:28:57 PM »

Quote

with that said wouldn't the first 3-4 sets be a waste of time?

IMO the first few sets of this protocol's like ascending pyramid training-the initial sets are essentially warmup sets to lubricate the muscles, joints and ligaments in combination with the psychological preparation for what is to follow, the core portion of the training.

IMO this is part of what many don't like about HIT, completely aside from the rigor. That is, there's no opportunity to get to the same point before the workout's already over. Of course, longer warmups could be done in HIT to simulate that, but i haven't seen it.

Vince B · « **Reply #316 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:29:42 PM »

Rammer. About negative reps or eccentric contractions. I wouldn't do them because the risk of injury is too great. Do conventional reps and get pumped up. That is much safer. This is one instance where safety is more important than effectiveness.

pumpster · « **Reply #317 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:31:45 PM »

Quote

how can you explain this if strength has little to do with hypertrophy, you youself said you have to increase weight to increase the damage done to the muscle

I had to explain this recently in another thread-strength gains ARE important, but only within the context of other accompanying variables like moderate reps, reasonably short rests, etc. Not by itself!

Fatpanda · « **Reply #318 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:33:26 PM »

i agree that strength does not always equate with size, but it does allow you to lift a heavier weight that will in turn damage a muscle more. i also agree that diet plays a big role in this, so how can you propose a theory that defies the laws of physics? all that extra protein thats going into those 14" guns of your has to come from somewhere, if your not eating it, its coming from somewhere else.

i really think you need to re-read the science of hst vince, its clear to me you dont really understand it. while i dont think its a perfect program as is, its much better than most, because the science it is based on (hypertrophy science) is solid.

i think once you do you'll be surprised, and re think your training theory.

can you answer the overtraining aspect of your system? how will you cope when this will occur? you cant simply ignore that it exists, especially at your age. ( this is not a dig, i'm 28 myself and i find over training a real problem)

Vince B · « **Reply #319 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:35:49 PM »

Fatpanda. I don't judge a method by what the theorist looks like. I judge it by what the disciples look like and if the method fits into my web of knowledge about training. When Haycock said he couldn't get any bigger he might as well have shut up shop and opened a health food store. That is effectively what he has done on his site. There is nothing original there and the method is a con. It cannot lead to maximum hypertrophy. He knows it and I know it. What happens is that the poor blokes who want to believe in his system have to change things until it works for them. That is crazy. I insist people do as I say and not experiment. If my theory is wrong then it deserves to be rejected and abandoned. HST is not optimal as outlined on Haycock's site. What I am proposing is an optimal program. If it doesn't work it is false. That is the test of truth of any method.

Rammer · « **Reply #320 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:37:30 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 20, 2006, 06:29:42 PM

Rammer. About negative reps or eccentric contractions. I wouldn't do them because the risk of injury is too great. Do conventional reps and get pumped up. That is much safer. This is one instance where safety is more important than effectiveness.

Well, knock on wood, I have never injured myself doing HIT. Didn't you mention injuring your achilles and elbows doing the training you are trying to advocate? I'll stick with my 2 sets and 45 mins in the gym while you spend all day there working out trying to stay sore.

Fatpanda · « **Reply #321 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:38:26 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on October 20, 2006, 06:31:45 PM

I had to explain this recently in another thread-strength gains ARE important, but only within the context of other accompanying variables like moderate reps, reasonably short rests, etc. Not by itself!

i agree.

TheGoldenPrince · « **Reply #322 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:38:31 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 20, 2006, 06:27:47 PM

Fatpanda. The need for more protein is the biggest lie magazines have done to bodybuilding. I advocate 1 gram of protein for every Kg of bodyweight. So if you weigh 220 pounds you need about 100 grams of protein. I would bet that 100 grams is more than enough. Taking more is foolish. I don't trust the research about this subject. There is simply too much money to be made from selling supplements to stupid people. Go and do the research about nutrition. Don't read bodybuilding magazines. I subscribe to Ironman on line. They had a recent issue where they reported from a nutrition conference. Info relevant for bodybuilders that is valuable = zero.

Not just the protein that counts but the amt that is ABSORBED and ASSIMILATED by the body per se. Dgestion is highly overlooked in BB, esp in natural BB. No nutrients being utilised du eto intestinal bile = no gains.

Vince B · « **Reply #323 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:49:01 PM »

I have read what Haycock has posted on his website re the principles and science behind HST. I find it absolutely dishonest to claim such a thing as HST while fully knowing there is no such scientific evidence re humans in the literature. What science? Sure there is a lot or research at the molecular level in muscles. That is the kind of research that is getting funding at universities. Has there been any recent studies where they tried to induce hypertrophy in advanced subjects over a 1 year time frame? Nope. We won't see any such research. They are not interested.

Haycock considers various aspects of growth including time-frames re protein synthesis in the muscles and concludes that retraining a muscle should occur every 36 hours. He has to be practical so he suggests retraining every 48 hours so people can easily follow this routine. What I wonder, for a scientist, is how come the 7th day is ignored? Why on Friday do we wait until Monday to retrain the muscles? There is no explanation except this is more practical. What hogwash. Gyms are now open 7 days a week.

I look at the exercises recommended and I see foolishess personified. There is little of value in that method. Those exercises cannot lead to maximum hypertrophy. Those protocols are not adequate. I don't know what to say except this is just a scam. That whole method is intellectually dishonest as far as I am concerned. Haycock can come here to debate with me. He wouldn't debate with me on his site so I presume he cannot defend his method. So much for science.

If my method doesn't work for you then discard it asap and do something else. That is what you should do with every method.

Fatpanda · « **Reply #324 on:** October 20, 2006, 06:51:11 PM »

i'm surprised at that vince, you look no more than 160lbs, so should i throw the baby out with the water? i think not.

i agree that hst is not optimal as is, but thats not to say its science is not sound, the only thing hst lacks in my view is proper periodization, for some reason this aspect has been totally missed. the reason it does not work is the same reasons linear progression only works so long, you lose strength in certain rep ranges and burnout occurs.

as for the protein issue, you dont need to attend nutrition seminars, etc to understand the body cannot manufacture protein from thin air. if you are breaking down a muscle, yet are not increasing protein intake you are not growing overall, as that protein is coming from somewhere. hormones, etc will only allow your body to recycle protein so far before a wall is reached, and net balance is maintained or reduced.